The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 760 - Feminists Experience Equality. They Don't Like It.

Episode Date: July 23, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we have moved one step close to signing women up for the draft. Yet the people who have clamored for gender equality aren’t celebrating the news. I wonder why? Also we have our Five Headlines, including Nancy Pelosi once again declaring herself a “devout catholic” in spite of her rabid defense of child murder. And the mayor of DC outlaws flavored tobacco, but will still be ready to throw any cop who tries to enforce the law under the bus. Hunter Biden gets ready to sell some of his art for hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ll take a look at his masterpieces today. And the team formerly known as the Cleveland Indians has chosen a new name. But will people find a way to be offended by it? We’ll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show. Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, we have moved one step closer to signing women up for the draft, yet the people who have clamored for gender equality for so long aren't celebrating the news. I wonder why. Also, we have our five headlines, including Nancy Pelosi, once again, declaring herself a devout Catholic in spite of her rabid defense of child murder. And the mayor of D.C. outlaws flavored tobacco, but I'm sure we'll still be ready to throw any cop who tries to enforce that law under the bus. Hunter Biden gets ready to sell some of his art for hundreds of thousands of dollars. We'll take a look at his masterpieces today. Are they working? worth all of that money. We'll take a look. And the team formerly known as the Cleveland Indians

has chosen a new name. But will the new name also be offensive? We'll try to figure that out today. And so much more on the Matt Walls show. You guys hear me talk every week about how much I love all of the My Pillow products. But the great thing about My Pillow is it's not just the pillow. Even though it's called My Pillow, this is not a one-dimensional thing. They've got many different products and all of their products are great. So now My Pillow is changing the game with our six-piece towel set. The set is made with USA cotton, making it extremely absorbent, yet still providing that soft feel that you look for in a towel. The set comes with two bath, two hand towels, and two washcloths, typically retailing for $109. For a limited time,

you can get this set for a low price of $39.99. That's over 60% in savings. And these are great towels, very comfortable, which I use and then throw directly on the bathroom floor, much to my wife's chagrin. But they're also absorbed it. So they'll see it. So they'll suck up all the extra water that might be on the ground there. So it's a really, it's a good strategy, I think. That's why I do it. Always remember, all MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee. So you have nothing to lose by trying this out.

Go to MyPillow.com and click on the radio listener square and use promo code DailyWire and check out or call 800-651-1148. You'll receive this amazing six-piece towel set for just $39.99. That's MyPillow.com and click on the radio listener square and use promo code DailyWire. Again, call 1-800-651-1148 and use promo code DailyWire. So let's talk, first of all, about equality, which is perhaps the most destructive myth of modern times. And we'll begin at a basic level with children. One of the basic jobs of a parent, especially when your kids are young, is to make them understand that not everything is equal.

To demand complete equality all the time is to be unreasonable and selfish and immature. Now, some parents are dumb enough or weak enough to cater to this childish and selfish need for equality. quality, fairness, as the kids usually call it, that's not fair. And so they make sure that everyone gets exactly the same amount of ice cream and each child gets to play with the toy for exactly the same amount of time. And if one child gets to do something, the others can do it too and on and on and on. I've even known a family where the living room had one especially comfortable chair with the best angle for TV watching. And the parents had a chart to determine whose turn it was to sit in the comfortable chair.

Everyone had to have the same amount of time, the same amount of sitting time allotted to them. It had to be exactly equal. Parents who feed into the equality demands will end up doing many absurd things like this. There's going to be charts and stopwatches and various measuring devices to make sure that everything is the same

for everyone all the time. Now, we don't play that game in my house, I can tell you. Sometimes one kid gets a little more ice cream than the others. Sometimes one gets to do a fun thing that the others don't. Sometimes, you know, I'm running an errand. I'll take one of my kids with me to run some errands. I'll get them a candy bar or something if I'm feeling generous. And then the others find out about the candy bar and they demand to know why they didn't get one too.

And when they do, I'll say, well, because that's the way it worked out this time. And also, I'm dad. Don't speak to me that way. Our kids know that we aren't setting timers or making charts or breaking out the measure cup. If you want to sit in the comfortable chair, get there first. Claim your spot. If you're fighting over the chair, I might just take it from all of you and sit in it myself. If you're complaining that you didn't get enough ice cream, I'll take that away too and eat it myself. If you're winding that one of your siblings has better toys than you or more toys, I'll remind you

that what you should be saying is, thank you, Dad, for the toys I have, which you paid for, I'm grateful for however many toys you decide to give me. If I had just one toy, and that was it, I would still leap for joy and sing songs of gratitude and gladness, daddy. The point of parenting this way is, one, my wife and I, we're not wearing black and white striped shirts. We're not referees. Okay, we don't have the whistle playing referee the whole time. That's not what we're doing. We have better things to do.

And also, again, the demand for complete equality all the time in all situations is unreasonable, childish, and selfish. It's the enemy of gratitude, of generosity, of love. The child who complains about a child. another child's superior toy, it's failing to show gratitude for his own toy, while also failing to demonstrate love for the other child. He should be happy that his sibling or his friend or whoever has a toy that he enjoys. Envy and resentment are not the appropriate response and should not be encouraged. He's also being impolite and irrational. All of these reactions are incorrect.

They also are understandable from a child. I was the same way as a kid. All kids are. Our job as parents is to help our kids grow in wisdom, maturity, and virtue, and we don't do that by supporting their delusional desire for total fairness and equality. We also want our kids to understand that not only are all things not equal, but this is important too. People are not equal either. People are different, have different strengths and weaknesses, and that's okay. My son is a naturally gifted athlete. He's constantly doing cartwheels and flips and various acrobatic stunts, which will win him well-deserved. praise and applause, unless he's doing it off the coffee table or something. My daughter has basically no athletic ability, but she's a gifted artist, and she's very creative and crafty. But my daughter will sometimes get jealous when she hears us complimenting her brother on his athletic ability,

and her brother will sometimes get jealous when he hears us complimenting his sister on her latest arts and crafts project. Again, we have to help them understand that they are different. They have different skills, and that's a good thing. Okay, what I'm not going to say to my daughter is, No, no, you're just as good of an athlete as your brother. She's not. I'm not going to say to her brother, no, you're just as good of an artist. You're different. That's cool.

That's good. You want to be better at this thing over here? Practice. Spend more time doing it. The problem is that, as is the case with so many other lessons, we teach our kids. Our culture is constantly sabotaging us, undermining us. We teach our children to forget about equality and focus on gratitude and love instead and hard work. but the culture is essentially the exact opposite message.

Sadly, we live in a country now, utterly obsessed with equality and overrun with emotionally stunted, overgrown post-adolescent children who had parents who played referee rather than being actual parents. I know that although I'm teaching my kids that not everything is equal and not everyone is equal because everyone is different, they're entering a world which has fully invested itself in the equality deletely. They're entering a world which has decided that all people are the same. There are no inherent differences. And everyone should have the same outcomes in life and have the same responsibilities and privileges. But as already established, this obsessive focus on equality is born from immaturity and selfishness. Which means that even when equality is granted, the people who demanded it still aren't happy. That's the other thing you notice with kids.

You start feeding into the equality thing. you just end up doing it more and more and more because they begin to think that it's something they're entitled to. And you see that with adults too. The more they're given this artificial equality, the more they want it, but the less satisfied they are when they get it. And that brings us finally to this.

Reported by the Hill, it says the Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft, the National Defense Authorization Act, approved by the committee behind closed doors on Wednesday, amends the Military Service Act to require registration of women for selective service, according to a summary released on Thursday. Now, a few things we should say right off the bat.

First of all, there obviously is no draft right now, and it might seem sort of far-fetched that there will ever be another draft again. Then again, a war with China, if that's where we're headed ultimately, may well require it. Either way, whether the draft is ever reinstated or not, it says something about our country that women are forced to sign up for it. And it doesn't say anything good. It is immoral and absurd and a disgrace for a nation to draft its daughters into combat. Men are supposed to protect women from things like that. That's the job of men.

In fact, men go over to fight these battles precisely so that. the women and children don't have to experience the violence and the horror. That's the whole point. If you're going to just send your daughters in anyway, then what's the point? Now, my daughters will certainly not be signing up. I would go to prison before I'd ship them off to go fight in any war, that's for sure. So that is one law, if it is signed into law, that I will happily disobey. and I can take that position without self-contradiction because I don't believe that men and women are equal, and I don't believe that they should have all the same roles or responsibilities in society. I've been very consistent about that for years.

There's nothing that could ever make me abandon my stance on that issue. I would rather be dead than ever affirm the insane modern notion that there is no fundamental difference between men and women. I would prefer death over that. That's how strongly I feel about it. The funny thing thought not surprising is that many of the people who supposedly feel the opposite way about it people who've been clamoring for equality who've claimed that men and women are indeed the same that the very terms men and women have no meaning

many of those people, if the reaction on the internet is any indication, are not happy about this news about the draft. In fact, I haven't seen any feminist or any champion of gender fluidity celebrate it. Forcing teenage girls to sign up for the draft is one of the most profound endorsements a country can give to the notion of gender equality. Those who have been marching under the gender equality banner should be dancing in the streets. And yet for the most part, they're not. As I said, this is no surprise. We have always known that the clamoring for equality is selective. Just as it is with my kids, my son might complain that his sister got a larger

piece of cake, but he's never once complained that his sister was given a harder chore to do. Likewise, feminists have called for more female CEOs and more representation in Hollywood and other posh and fancy industries. But I've never heard any of them worry about the fact that the vast majority of roofers and garbage collectors are men. That's because even the people who believe in equality really don't believe in it and don't want it. When they cry for equality what they mean always is that there is some particular privilege they want to be granted or benefit they want to be given whether they've earned it or not. The equality advocates never ask to share in suffering, to share in duty, to share in sacrifice. It turns out that even the champions of equality

know that equality is not a desirable or even feasible goal. But even so, whether they wanted the form of quality that ends with women getting drafted to die on foreign soil far away or not, they now have it. It may not be what they wanted, but it's what they asked for. And they have only themselves to thanks, to thank. So congratulations, feminists. You earned it. Now let's get to our five headlines. Up until very recently, the world had yet to see a really successful conservative morning podcast. The content created by the usual talking heads has been oversaturated. And with leftist propaganda and you just can't trust it at all. But now the Daily Wire and the Daily Wire Newsroom has solved that problem with the

Morning Wire, the morning podcast that values your time and the truth. We're thrilled to see that our listeners shared our appreciation of the facts because the podcast just launched this week. And it's already the number two podcast on Apple and number 11 on Spotify. And while we're proud of this, we need to help us get the news you need to know where it belongs at number one. So subscribe now to Morning Wire on Apple Spotify or wherever you listen to podcast and leave a five-star review if you like what you hear. All right. Let's start. I just saw this. This just breaking news just came across my desk.

Cleveland's baseball team has changed its name. So I got the story here from CNBC. It says Cleveland's Major League Baseball team is changing its name to Guardians. Now we know they used to be the Indians, and we've decided that's offensive. No one's ever explained why that's offensive. Why is it offensive to say Indians? But it is now. The I word, can't say that anymore. So now they are the Guardians. It says the franchise announced this on Friday, dropping the racially offensive name it has been known for as for more than a century.

The name Guardians is a reference to well-known art. Deco statues located on the Lorraine Carnegie Bridge, which connects downtown Cleveland to the city's trendy Ohio city neighborhood. Those statues are known as the Guardians of Traffic. So you named your team after some statues on a bridge? Of all this time thinking about it, and that's what you go with? The franchise, which announced the name change in a tweet on Friday morning, had long-faced pressure from activists locally and nationally to ditch the name Indians, which critics said was racist. It's been the baseball's club's name since 1915. Okay, so the Cleveland Guardians. I think a few issues here. First being there was no reason

to change the name to begin with. Anyone complaining about it should have been simply ignored. But, first of all, Guardians, before you find out that it's based on some Art Deco statues on a bridge, Guardians sounds, it actually sounds almost too sort of epic and almost celestial, makes you think of Guardian angels. You think Guardians, and then Cleveland, Guardians from Cleveland. There's an incongruity there that, there, that, kind of doesn't make sense. And also, the name guardians might still be offensive.

I can't think of why, but I'm sure someone will think of a reason. I mean, right at the top of my head, it is based on statues. We know that statues, there's a lot of trauma related to statues. Many people in this country have been traumatized by many different statues. And so that might bring those to light. I mean, think about it. Guardians based on a statue. There were Confederate statues.

So in effect, this is basically a Confederate name, if you think about it. And also, guardians, that's kind of, what do you think of? What do you think of guardians? You think of it's aggressive. These are people who are armed, who are guarding. It brings to mind war and battle. And then that also is an offensive. stereotype of Native Americans, that they were a war-faring people, even though they were,

but still. Or we could go the other way, and we could say that it's offensive because it erases Native Americans. Guardians is a, I think if you follow the etymology of that word, it's kind of a French Anglo word in its etymology. And so now we're taking Native Americans and we're erasing them. It's a whitewashing. So there are many different. angles we could take here to figure out why this is offensive. And it'll just be interesting to figure out, you know, the PC mob, what do they go with? I think they got three solid options. It's still offensive in Native Americans because it's a stereotype somehow, or it erases Native Americans, or it's a, it is traumatizing because it's related to statutes. I think any of those are good. We'll see where they go

next. It'll be fun to keep track of. All right. From the Daily Wire, All Hail Mississippi says the Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to defend the right of the people to pass laws that protect life and women's health, urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. So this is a very important step here that Mississippi has taken, that someone needed to take, asking the court specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade. Fitch wrote in a brief, the court's abortion precedence depart from a sound understanding of the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade, this court held that abortion is a rights, specially protected by the 14th Amendment, and so laws restricting it must withstand heightened scrutiny.

This court should overrule Roe and Casey. So what Fitzh said. The brief stated, quote, Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition. And that won't shock you to learn. I fully agree with that. And no matter where you stand on abortion,

even if you are fully in favor of it, you should still, if you're an honest person, I don't know if that's a, that's probably not a type of person that can exist, an honest pro-abortion advocate, kind of an oxymoron there. But if that oxymoron could exist in reality, then that would be a person who would say,

I'm in favor of abortion, but Rovi-Wa-Wa-Waids is ridiculous. It was decided wrongly. because clearly there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that makes any mention of abortion that is related in any way to abortion so it should be overturned now the question becomes the court as it is currently assembled is this a court that would overturn rovi-Waid and i pray that they do but all i'm going to say is do not get your hopes up we hear in the media that this is a a far right court, conservative majority court.

It's certainly not far right. And I wouldn't even call a conservative majority. How many justices, of all of the justice on the Supreme Court, how many can we count on? How many do we know would absolutely vote correctly to overturn Roevey-Wade? I think two. There's two that we know would. maybe a third you could see possibly going that way. I don't see how you get to a majority.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Roberts. You think they're going to come down on overturning Roeby Way? The problem is, especially Roberts, Kavanaugh, too. They have shown, putting aside their philosophy of law, they have shown that they do care about being accepted in polite society. at the cocktail parties and so on. And if they decided to overturn Rovi Way, they would be, and anyone, if this court decided that, anyone on the majority side of that decision would be seen as, the backlash they would get is

unimaginable. I think, in fact, they would be taking their life into their hands. You got to keep in mind, to the left, abortion is their holiest and highest sacrament. To take that away, all this stuff they say is a handmaid's tail, you want to take away a woman's right to choose. It's like enslaving women. They really believe that they've convinced themselves of that. And it is hard to fathom, predict fully the reaction if Rovi Wade was overturned. Even though, even upon overturning Roevey Wade, it wouldn't mean that abortion is now illegal across the country.

Roevey Wade is overturned unless there's a constitutional amendment. like a personal amendment, which isn't going to happen, simply overturning Rovi-Wa-Wa-Wa-W-W-8, all that means is that states can now make their own laws, which should have been the case. Well, abortion should be illegal across the country. That's not going to happen. So in reality, Roe v. Wade is overturned.

States make their own laws. And that means places like California, New York, many of the states with the highest population, population centers, still going to have all the abortion you want. Even so, the reaction will be demonic. We can be sure. So it would require some real moral courage and fortitude. There are two justices on the court who I am sure have that moral courage and fortitude. The rest, I don't think so. But again, we can pray. And we should. Speaking of having no courage or moral fortitude, Nancy Pelosi was once again given a chance to defend her support for

tax-funded abortion, given the fact that she's, quote-a-quote, Catholic, and here's what she said. Because it's an issue of health of many women in America, especially those in lower-income situations and in different states, and it is something that has been a priority for many of us a long time. As a devout Catholic and mother of five and six years, I feel that God bless my husband and me with our beautiful family. five children, six years almost to the day. But that may not be what we should. It's not up to me to dictate that that's what other people should do. And it's an issue of fairness and justice for poor women in our country. So we need poor women to be able to kill their kids.

We don't want more. We don't want more poor people. That's the message here, basically. She's saying, yeah, I mean, I can have all these kids, but we don't want all these poor people. And she's a devout Catholic, she says. Now, those words do have definitions. The word devout, let's just break this down for a second. Devout Catholic who supports abortion. Well, what do these words mean? Devout Catholic.

Well, devout means totally committed to a cause or a belief. Totally committed. Catholic, what does that mean? That means a member of the Catholic Church. So if you're a devout Catholic, it means that you are totally committed to the church and to the beliefs that are a part of being a Catholic. So I'm just wondering, how can you be not only a Catholic but a devout Catholic while fundamentally rejecting the moral authority of the church, which is what you would need to do to support abortion?

this is not a matter. A Catholic's, in spite of the misunderstanding of many people who are not Catholic, Catholics are not required to agree with everything the Pope says. If that were the case, then I wouldn't be Catholic because I disagree with what the Pope says all the time. But when it comes to the church's fundamental moral authority, official pronouncements from the church, the official position of the church, it's longstanding moral teachings going back. thousands of years. When it comes to that, well, you're perfectly free in America to disagree with those, but you can't call yourself a devout Catholic while you do it. It doesn't make any sense. That's it. You cannot be a devout Catholic or any kind of Catholic while rejecting the moral authority of the church. Because to reject the moral authority, and no one ever follows up on this with her, no one ever, there's never a follow-up question. I'd love to hear it. Not that it would matter, she would dance around her to refuse to answer it, but still, I would love to hear someone say, well, hang on, Nancy, you say you're devout Catholic, the church's a position on

abortion has always been that it's intrinsically evil, never wavering from that for centuries upon century. So are you saying that the church is wrong on this fundamental moral issue? Well, yes, you are. Well, then why are you Catholic? If you think the church is fallible when it comes to morals, then you have the same opinion of the church that every non-Catholic has. And you're perfectly entitled to have that opinion, but not to call yourself a Catholic while you do. Just like I can't sit here and say,

I disagree with the Mormons about everything fundamentally, but sure, I'm a Mormon. That word has a meaning, and this is not the meaning. It's kind of funny, too, that you have people who hate the church despise it of no respect for it and are not Catholic themselves and yet if you say that Nancy Pelosi isn't a Catholic they take it personally

they get offended as if you're insulting Nancy Pelosi you shouldn't even see that as an insult you hate the church and you should see it as a compliment when I say that Nancy Pelosi isn't a Catholic so it doesn't make any sense at all all right speaking of not making sense

Mayor Bowser of D.C. had a big announcement. She signed into law the Flavored Tobacco Prohibition Amendment Act of 2021. Here's her statement posted at Twitter yesterday announcing it. She says, to attack disparities in health outcomes and ensure all Washingtonians, no matter where they live in our city, have the same opportunities to live long, healthy lives, we must think and act broadly. Last week, when we broke ground on Whitman Walker at St. Elizabeth East on the same campus where we are building a new full-service hospital and down the street from the future DC Health Headquarters. We could feel how transformative these investments will be for our residents.

Blah, blah, blah. We know that black residents are disproportionately... Yeah, it really said blah, blah, blah. This is a verbatim. I'm reading it. We know that black residents are disproportionately affected by tobacco use and flavored tobacco, including menthol, continues to have a particularly insidious effect on our community. Today, we take a hugely impactful step. I hate that word, impactful step to reducing tobacco initiation and addiction in Washington, D.C. Black residents are disproportionately affected by flavored tobacco. How does that work exactly?

Are you saying that a black person walks into a convenience store and a box of black and mild just leaps off the shelf and assaults them? What you're saying is that, according to you, black residents of your city, prefer this kind of tobacco and make the decision to buy it. That's what you're saying. but they shouldn't be allowed to make that decision you're announcing very paternalistically and so you're going to prohibit it here's the problem though among many laws require enforcement if you're going to have the law someone has to enforce it

we have people who do that they're called law enforcement officers the same ones that you on the left want to defund. So what this means now, if you're going to, if you're not going to enforce it, then we might, we might as well not have the law. If you, if you do want to enforce the law, then that means that police officers are going to have to go and start writing citations or arresting people, however the law is written for selling or, or, uh, or using this kind of tobacco. Are you willing, is this law important enough that you're willing for someone to potentially get shot over it. Now, it doesn't mean that the cops are just going to see someone with a black, a mild,

a flavored, you know, a filly or something, flavored vanilla flavored, something gross like that, and the cops are going to show up and just shoot the person. No, that's not what happens. But if they show up to enforce the law and the person they're trying to enforce it on resists, what are they supposed to do then? Say, well, okay, never mind. Hey, we got to write you a citation for this. This is illegal.

And they say, no, I'm not, I refuse. Then cops are supposed to respond, well, never mind that. Oh, you don't want us to enforce the law on you. Well, thanks for letting us know. Be on your way. Have a good one. Once again, if that's the interaction you want, then you might as well not have the law at all. You've got to think this all the way through.

If they resist and we're going to have the law, then that means that now they have to use force. And then things can spiral from there. So as I saw we say with these things, if it's a law, if you're thinking about passing a law and you wouldn't want anyone potentially getting shot over it, if it's not worth using state force, potentially violent force to enforce it, then the law should not exist. And if you're thinking to yourself, well, that means a whole lot of laws should not exist. Well, yep, if the shoe fits.

All right, moving on here. This is from Yahoo. A little bit of celebrity gossip. I don't do this very often, but I wanted to mention this. Nicole Young will be receiving a substantial amount of money from Dr. Dre amid their divorce, the rapper Dr. Day, not a real doctor. Well, he's as real a doctor as Jill Biden is anyway. A judge ordered the music mogul to pay a young $293,000 per month in spousal support. 300 grand per month, more than $3.5 million a year. While it's a good chunk of change, for most people, the sum is much less than she requested. Dr. Dre's now ex-wife asked for $2 million a month that he's going to have to pay now. Okay. As far as the specific situation with their marriage and all that, I don't know anything about it. It doesn't matter. Who's right and wrong?

Who's the bad guy? Who's the good guy? reading one of the articles I saw that apparently allegedly he committed infidelity, but also there was a pre-up, and she's saying that the pre-nup, he tore up the pre-up at some point in the marriage, and he's saying, no, I didn't, and then back and forth and back and forth. Many times in a marriage, and I think anyone is a marriage counselor could probably attest to this, you know, it's relatively rare in a marriage that there's a straightforward, especially 20 years you've been married or more.

There's rarely a straightforward, good guy, bad guy situation. even when you mix an infidelity and all these kinds of things, normally there's a whole lot of fault to go around for everybody. That's usually the way it goes. There are exceptions. But I will say, not knowing the situation, 300 grand a month seems excessive, shall we say. Child support is one thing,

but spousal support for a grown woman with no minor children to the tune of $3 million a year seems absurd. See, the thing is that our divorce laws don't make a lot of sense. our whole approach to marriage, our view of marriage makes no sense. What most people would say is that these days, if you ask most people, they'll say that marriage is a private affair, it's a private concern, and you have the right to get divorced and cut ties with one another, and that's it. Right? It's as simple as that.

It's what most people think of marriage. Well, the problem is that even in a no-fault divorce situation where you can break the contract for literally no reason, And it's the only contract you could do that with, by the way. Break it for no reason at all. But even there, you have to do it through the courts. You have to do it through a government institution. And because of alimony, in fact, you can't actually break it all the way. If the man is paying alimony, then he is being told that he must remain responsible for and to his wife after the alleged dissolution of the marriage.

It's one thing if there's a cash settlement at the end, and he's told by the courts, well, you've got to give her $5 million and then you guys can go your separate ways. What the courts are saying is in perpetuity until this person dies or marries somebody else, which they probably will never marry someone else if it means you have to give up $300 grand a month, right? So what the court is saying is that the commitment that was made actually cannot be broken. You cannot break it fully anyway. So my question is just as simply this. Which is it? Is marriage a private thing? Nobody else's business can be entered into and ended whenever the partners in that private arrangement decide?

Or is it also a public institution in which the commitment you make to one another cannot be severed and potentially remains permanent no matter what you want to do? Because right now in our culture, We kind of say, well, both. We try to have our divorce cake and eat it too. We want to say marriage is only private. It's just about two people loving each other. That's all it is.

But then also you go get divorced. You ask the courts to bless it and to enforce alimony payments and everything else. I think we have to choose a path. That's all. I mean, which is it? Marriage is a private thing. Nobody else is business. Or it's a public concern.

Courts, governments are involved, alimony, lifetime support, that kind of thing. It can't be both. Something to think about. I have my answer, but I'll let you come up with your own. All right, finally, Hunter Biden, reading now from The Daily Wire, Hunter Biden, the son of Democrat President Joe Biden, is reportedly expected to meet with prospective buyers of his high-priced art, a development which comes after the White House claimed that the identities of the buyers would be kept secret.

So this is something we recently learned that Hunter Biden is supposedly an artist. And now he's talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars that he's going to be making on this artwork. And that creates all kinds of problems. He's the son of the president. You've got foreign buyers coming in, giving him lots of money. Is this just a way for foreign influences to make payoffs under the guise of paying for artwork? These are the questions. And then you take a look at the art.

We have it up on the screen here. Here are three pieces of artwork. And you've got one, it looks like maybe a stained glass window designed by a first grader, and then drop down the steps. And you got the one in the middle there. Maybe that at best is a middle schooler's art project that somebody dropped a hot dog onto, and then it got ketchup and mustard all over the place. And the one on the right there, that looks like Hunter was printing out some kind of color document, and it got jammed in the printer, and he yanked it out, and the ink smeared. That's the artwork. I think he's looking at $500,000,

either for all of that or one of those, I'm not sure. I mean, you tell me, is this a little suspicious? But then again, what do I know? I'm no artist. All right, we do have one more thing. Before we get to read in the comments, I got to play this, I almost forgot, on a Friday.

It just seems like a good time for it. You guys obviously know them. I'm a big believer in aliens. And yet I'm skeptical of the aliens spiritual cousin, which is Bigfoot. I've never heard of a Bigfoot siting that sounded especially compelling or persuasive to me. But maybe this will be different. Someone sent this to me, a listener sent this to me.

This is a local news report in Mississippi. This is from a couple days ago. And they're reporting on a Bigfoot siting. And let's just, let's take a look. And I saw some trees shaking. And then I really looked at, I could see the silhouette of them holding trees like that. And then when he really arrived, I saw him, he screamed at me again. And that really scared me.

Well, we're in the Mississippi River backwater shooting the story, but I wanted to get a place that looked a little bit more bigfootish. So I stopped by a couple of spots I know on the way home on the Nash's trace. Now, keep in mind, I had just talked to a person who told me that he had seen a big foot and that the big foot screamed at him. And so here's what I heard in the woods. Can you hear it? Way way back in the distance.

This is a, ah, ah, ah, sound. At first I didn't know what it was. I really didn't think it was a big foot, but I couldn't rule it out because it just never had heard a sound like that, not on the Natchez's trace anyway. But fortunately, at the end of one of its last yowls, you can't hear it because it's inauduble to the camera, but it went put, put, put, put, put, put, put, chainsaw.

So that's my big foot experience. Now, had it been a real big foot, I would have turned into a UFO, an unidentified fleeing object. Back to you guys. Oh. Okay. Not a lot going down to Mississippi, it appears.

That report made it on to air. Clearly, that was a chainsaw. I never heard a sound like that before. Really? You never heard a chainsaw before? It's very obviously a chainsaw. Couldn't rule out a big foot. No, I think you could probably rule out a big foot on that one.

And my main problem with the way that they did this report is, is completely overshadowed. I want to hear more from the first guy who was face to face with a Bigfoot and the Bigfoot was screaming at him. That's the first time I've heard of Bigfoot screaming. And yet we have no no visual, no video, no audio

except what turns out to be a chainsaw. That's where the skepticism comes in for me. And I want it to be true. I want to believe all this stuff. Bigfoot aliens, ghosts. I'm into it. I'm ready. I'm willing.

Just give me something halfway believable, and you got me. And we're not there yet. All right, let's go to reading the YouTube comments. This is from Andrea, she says, Matt, the BTS fans who call you ugly are not only deaf but blind as well. Well, Andrea, I won't have you speaking about BTS fans that way. Okay? You're not going to speak of the BTS gang.

I'm not going to have the SBG gang. slandering the BTS gang in that way. You are banned from the show. But thank you for that compliment. Lex says you're definitely not ugly. Well, look, I'd say I'm, you know, I'd say I'm a solid six and a half. I would give myself that.

I think that's fair. So not actively ugly. It's like, it's not like I'm trying to prove a point. You see some ugly people and it's almost, you almost want to say, well, okay, calm down. We get it. But also not attractive enough to compensate for my character flaws.

And so that's kind of where, slightly above average, I think, you know what a six and a half is? You're six and a half on the physical attractiveness scale. If you're usually the most attractive person in a DMV when you go to renew your license, that puts you in the six and a half range. So that's kind of where I'm at. You know, I'm probably going to be the most handsome guy at the DMV.

At a mall or something, maybe I'm 70th percentile. walking down the trendy place in a spot in a city on a Friday night, I'm going to be more in like the 40th percentile. So that's kind of where I'm at. And I'm comfortable with that. That's a good range to be in. Haley says, I put a mask on my three-year-old once because he needed to go to a doctor's visit. He kept licking it, touching it, rubbing his nose with it.

And he had it on for maybe 15 minutes until we got to the room. How do we expect young kids to wear them all day? More importantly, why? Yeah, that's why these masks get incredibly gross. Anyone who has any experience of young kids knows that you put anything near a three-year-old's mouth and it will go in their mouth. So, for example, you're trying to wipe your three-year-old just had some chocolate ice cream and you're trying to wipe their mouth. And they'll do this weird thing where they open their mouth and try to like lick the napkin as you're wiping their mouth off. That's what three-year-olds do.

And now just imagine. Imagine taking that gross saliva-covered napkin and putting it over their face for seven hours. That's what we're doing here. And Lucas says, Matt, do you think demons in a spiritual realm could be the answer to UFOs? I don't because I don't see why the demons would need to fly around in vehicles of any kind or why they would be doing it. So, no, that's not a theory that I find particularly persuasive. And Joshua says, way off topic here, but Matt, can you please address the fact that urinals are going extinct? It seems like more and more places are going away from having men's and women's restrooms in favor of all gender restrooms.

Maybe TMI, but I'm a dude and I don't sit down to pee. Okay, well, that is sort of TMI. But, yeah, I'm fully in favor, as you know, of men and women's restrooms. You do know, though, and I don't want to get too graphic or anything, but you do realize that you don't, you don't have to sit down on the regular toilets. You can also, there is a, there is, you can also use them while standing up, just so you know, I don't know if you were aware of that. Um, but while I support, of course, the gender segregation of the restrooms, as far as urinals go, I have to disagree with you. I, I think that that is a change

that, that I would welcome. Um, I think that men in the men's room, we should, we should get the full stalls, the full bathroom stalls, like the women have. To me, this is, this is, this is one. This is one, primitive, barbaric thing. It's like we're animals all standing next to each other. No. That's one thing we can leave in the past, I think. Time to move forward. I could use that. Call me a diva. I don't know. But I can use a slightly more dignified and private restroom experience. That's just, that's my opinion. So if you want to know my opinion on urinals, there it is. You know, if I know one woman who isn't afraid to speak her mind, it's Candace Owens. And while this often gets her trending on Twitter, it's also got her a studio here in Nashville,

the Daily Wire, which you can now come see for your own eyes. However, the catch is you have to be an All Access member. If you are, you can now be a part of the Candace Show live studio audience at the Daily Wire headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. Why do we only allow the All Access members to come? Well, because they are, you know, they are favorites. and these are very nice, clean, nice-smelling people that we've found, the all-access members, unlike the riffraff who are not all-access.

So if you want to come here to the Daily Wire Studios, then you have to become an all-access member yourself. If you live in Nashville area, I've been planning and taking a trip here, now is the time. So head to DeliWire.com slash tickets today to pick up yours. And if you haven't a pre-ordered a signed copy of Ben Shapiro's newest book, The Authoritarian Moment Already, then you're running out of time. bookshelves on Tuesday, July 27th. You can get your limited edition sign book now for just $30 at DailyWire.com slash Ben. That's a pretty good deal if you ask me, especially because Ben will be doing a live stream book signing and Q&A on Tuesday. And you can submit a question right now when you go

to purchase your signed copy. So go do that right now, the authoritarian moment on sale on Tuesday. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Thanks, yours too. What does Ravs stand for anyway? To me, it's the remote. Remarkably advanced vehicle. Really? To me, it's the runway approved vehicle for its amazing style. What about remarkably adaptable vehicle because of its versatile cargo space? Or really admired vehicle? Oh, or really awesome vehicle.

It really is the recreational activity vehicle. The stylish 2026 Toyota RAP4 Limited. What's your Rav for? Over the past week or so, including today, we've discussed issues relating to abortion a few times. And that's where the new cycle has taken us, though even apart from the new cycle. it is one of the central issues of our time and has for that reason always been a central concern of mine. Now, the focus on this topic recently has provoked many people to leave all kinds of comments and send me messages, making all sorts of really bad arguments against my position.

And I addressed some of those arguments as presented by people on TikTok, I think that was last week. But there's one argument that I've not addressed recently, and it's perhaps worth devoting some attention to, because many people seem to find it persuasive. At least four different people over the last week have brought this up to me. and the argument varies a little bit depending on who is making it, but the theme and the point is always the same. So I'll pull one of these at random in order to respond to it. Here is the argument as articulated by someone in the comments on my show.

I think this was yesterday. And he wrote, quote, okay, thought experiment. There's a burning abortion clinic, and due to the very unusual circumstances you find yourself in, you only have time to choose between saving a perfectly healthy baby who's a few weeks old, or you could save a mini-fridge containing a thousand implanted eggs at the very earliest stages. would you actually lose sleep over saving the child instead of these 1,000, quote, children? Now, as I said, this is a popular argument. You've probably heard it before.

Sometimes it's 1,000 embryos, sometimes 10,000, sometimes 500. Sometimes there's a baby or a 5-year-old or a kid of some other age. In this case, the commenter says 1,000 implanted eggs in an abortion clinic for some reason. We'll assume he meant embryos in an IVF clinic, because implantation is when the egg attaches to the uterine wall. if there's a thousand of those, then there are a thousand pregnant women. And my question is, why are they in a freezer? And also, if I have time to save a thousand pregnant women, why can't I save the baby too?

But this is semantics, perhaps. We'll just say embryos, because that's the form the argument usually takes. And the point here is obvious. If you say that the born child, if you say that you would save the born child over the embryos, then clearly you must be affirming that there is some sort of inherent difference between the born child and the embryo, which reveal supposedly a fundamental contradiction in your pro-life position. That is, unless you take more than 10 seconds to think about the issue, which I have, so here's how I would break it down.

Would I save the born baby instead of the embryos? Yes, absolutely. No question. Does that prove that my position on abortion is wrong or contradictory or logically weak? No, absolutely not. And I'll tell you why. A few things to consider. First, we're talking about emotions here. Okay. The decision of who to save in a burning building is an emotional one that you make, more than it is a moral one. The reason we're put in a burning building for this hypothetical is to get us to forfeit our moral reasoning and adopt emotional reasoning. Emotional reasoning in a burning building is okay. In an abortion clinic, it isn't.

after all my personal and emotional connection with my own child would lead me to save him over someone else's does that mean i don't recognize the value of someone else's child or that it would be okay for me to kill someone else's child of course not second point there's a really important difference between leaving someone in a burning building because you can't save them and directly killing them yourself. It is morally permissible to commit a good act, saving a child, which may indirectly lead to something bad, the embryos being destroyed. The intention in that case is to save the child not to destroy the embryos. I'm not the one who's destroying the embryos. I didn't kill them. I merely failed to prevent them from being killed. And that's obviously a really significant distinction.

It's why if there are two people trapped in a fire and you run in and save only one, you're not going to be prosecuted for murdering the one you didn't save. If anyone's prosecuted for murder, it'll be the person who set the fire. See, in abortion, on the other hand, the child is being killed in a, quote, fire set by his parents. A choice is made to directly and purposefully kill the child. It's a very different thing. Third, this thought experiment, if it measures anything at all. It measures how much I personally would value the child over the embryos. But it doesn't matter how I value them personally. It's their intrinsic value that matters. I value my family over your family, whoever you are. I value my family over yours. But your family has the same intrinsic

value. See, I'm making the decision based, as I said before, on emotion. I can see the child, I can hear him crying. I'm looking him in the eyes. I grab him. It's instinct. There's also some logic to it. I don't really know how many of the embryos are still, you know, viable, whether they'll ever, whether they'll ever be implanted and given the chance to develop. I don't know these things.

Again, this calculation would not justify killing the embryos under any circumstance, but it would justify my decision to save the child instead. Maybe I can get the point across with my own thought experiment. Okay? You're in a burning building. There's an 85-year-old terminally ill cancer patient and a healthy five-year-old boy. You could only save one. Who do you choose? Wouldn't everyone save the five-year-old? Even the 85-year-old himself would probably tell you to save the five-year-old.

Is that because the 85-year-old's life has less value? Does the fact that we would all immediately choose the five-year-old prove anything at all about the intrinsic value of elderly people? No, it speaks only to the terrible and morbid calculations, we're forced to make when we're put in a dire situation like this. If I had a choice to save my own child or 100 strangers, well, I've got bad news for the strangers. And the news is not that they have no moral worth or basic rights. It's just that I'm dad and that's my kid and I'm not leaving him to burn under any circumstance. So that's how you deal with that argument. But notice something about the pro-abortion side. Notice how they almost

always rely on these far-fetched hypotheticals. You're in a burning IVF clinic. You're attached by tubes to a stranger, et cetera, et cetera. Or they rely on extremely hard cases like rape and incest. See, what the pro-abortion side never wants to talk about is the actual reality of abortion in almost every case. Because in actual reality, almost every time, there's no fire. There hasn't been any rape.

There's just the child who was, conceived through an intentional act by the parents. And he's there now. And so is the mother. And so is the abortionist. And a choice is made that doesn't have to be made. That's the reality. So let's talk about that.

But that's the last thing that anybody on the pro-abortion side actually wants to talk about. Which is why they are today, yet again, of course. canceled. And we'll leave it there for the, uh, and the week, and I'll talk to you next week. Have a great weekend. God bless. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.

Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Knowles Show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. Our technical director is Austin Stevens. Production manager, Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina.

Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. John Bickley here, editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire. Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire. On today's episode, the Tokyo Olympics, officially kick off. Hollywood attempts a box office comeback, and the new space race begins. Join us and get the facts first on the news you need to know with our show, Morning Wire.